TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1444X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iable to interest w.e.f. 30th day of service of OIO on the amount of duty paid belatedly, if any. Such interest, shall be calculated by the adjudicating authority and intimated to the appellant. The appellant is also at liberty to calculate the interest payable, if any, in terms of this order and filed the same for approval of the' adjudicating authority - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - Ex. Appeal No. 53479/14 - - - Dated:- 26-10-2015 - Anil Choudhary, Member (J) For the Appellant : Mr Rinki, Adv For the Respondent : Shri V K Shastri, AC (AR) ORDER Per Anil Choudhary, AM The Appellant, M/s Avadh Alloys Pvt. Ltd., is in Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 170-CE/APPL/MRT-I/2013 dated 17.12.2013 passed by Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had again filed declaration dated 25.11.1998 in respect of revised parameter for which permission was granted. The revised capacity was determined at 2180 MT per annum. However, in terms of Rule 5 (as introduced vide Notification 45/97-CE dated 30.08.1997) annual capacity was retained 4641 MT per annum based on the actual production for the year 1996-97. The appellants challenged both the orders determining ACP before this Tribunal and this Tribunal in Appeal No.E/204/99-NB being Final Order No.A/457/99-NB (DB) dt. 03.06.1999 and Appeal No.E/1571/99-NB being Final Order No.A/56/2000-NB (DB) dated 06.01.2000, allowed the appeals of the appellant assessee holding that the capacity re-determined in terms of Rule 3 (3) read with Rule 4 (2), sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 99 04.05.1999 Dec.98 to Jan.99 Rs.1,30.381/- 3. V(30)Dem/183/99 17.05.1999 Feb.99 to March.99 Rs.1,25,817/- 4. V(30)Dem/251/99 31.08.1999 April.99 to July.99 Rs.2,45,100/- 5. V(30)Dem/371/99 31.12.1999 Aug.99 to Nov.99 Rs.2,45,100/- 6. V(30)Dem/103/2000 19.04.2000 Dec.99 to March,2000 Rs.2,45,100/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Krishana Processsors Vs. Union of India : 2012 (280) ELT 186 (Guj.), which was followed by this Tribunal in the case of Alwar Processors Pvt. Ltd. : 2014 (308) ELT 720, wherein in view of the division of Section 3A of the Act by amending, the Act without any saving clause of pending proceeding, will be held abated. As such, there was no question of interest and penalty imposable on the appellant. 7. The ld.DR relies on the impugned order and also relies on the ruling of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Triveni Alloys Ltd. Vs. CESTAT, Chennai, wherein it has been held that in case of manufacture of re-rolling steel under similar facts and circumstances, annual capacity was fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
